In the case of General Electric Co. et al. v. Washington in 1953, the Supreme Court ruled that a state could impose a tax on an out-of-state corporation for its use and possession of tangible personal property located within the state's borders, even if such property was used solely for interstate commerce purposes. The court held that this did not violate either the Commerce Clause or Due Process Clause of the U.S Constitution as long as it is fairly apportioned to reflect intrastate values and activities only. In this particular case, General Electric had been using equipment owned by them but located in Washington State to manufacture products which were then shipped across state lines for sale elsewhere; they argued unsuccessfully that taxing these assets constituted an undue burden on interstate commerce.

In the dissenting opinion for General Electric Co. et al. v. Washington, Justice Douglas argued that the state of Washington did not have jurisdiction to impose a tax on out-of-state companies for their use of intangible property within its borders. He contended that such taxation violated the Due Process Clause and Commerce Clause of the Constitution by unfairly burdening interstate commerce and infringing upon federal authority over foreign trade policy. Furthermore, he asserted that this case was different from previous cases where states were allowed to tax tangible property located within their boundaries because it involved intangible assets like patents which are inherently national or international in scope rather than confined to one particular state's territory.